I believe it does in part, but the problem is more systematic than that.

When FSU joined up, basketball drove a lot of value. The ACC teams all agreed this was an equal share conference. We have seen the issues with UTexas and the Big12. The simple fact is that any team that is getting less revenue will always believe it is not being treated fairly and say the league should be socialist. It's part of life. And, given most leagues are run that way, it's hard to take another position.

The real problem is that the league overall was not managed in a way to keep overall average value competitive with other leagues. Thus, the only way for FSU to be competitive with other leagues/teams is to demand the ACC share revenue unequally. It has the economic argument on its side. No one can debate FSU brings the most revenue to the league. However, it has history and tradition running strongly against taking that position. Clearly, the administration has stuck with history and tradition, and I can't really blame them. We can throw around the idea of unequal revenue sharing on a message board pretty easily, but few think about the long term damage that does to a league.

FSU's only real option in the last few years was to realize that being in an equal revenue league paying tons less than other leagues over the long run is not feasible, and therefore not get tied into long term contracts. To me, that's where we failed. I think FSU should have been aggressively seeking a better place to land, and use that leverage to make a deal with the league that did not tie us into a contract for so long with such a bad penalty for leaving. But, once we agreed with the others to a 12 year deal, we became locked into the damages we would cause by breaching that contract.